The Brother the Leader of the Revolution addresses the heads and members of judiciary organs in the People’s General Committee of Justice, academicians, graduate and advanced degree students in the School of Law of al-Fateh University, The Seventh of April University, Al-Marqab, Academy for Graduate Studies, and the Green Auditorium - Main Page (English) / Main Page - Algaddafi.org

*** 31.10.2004 >>> VIDEO: Direct Video Link (YouTube - New Window)I wish you well in Ramadan. How are you? I greet you in this Holy Month, and thank you for being here. I know you are fasting. Forgive me for the inconvenience.I would like to avail myself of this opportunity to share with you my thoughts on some legal questions.

You are Professors and students of law. I believe we are about to submit a draft penal code to the People’s Conferences. This new draft contains new amendments. We only make suggestions because the final decision has to be taken by the People’s Conferences.

The People are above the principles and above the law, because they lay down principles and make the law.One may say principles take precedence; another says no, the law rules. We say the people rule. The people are above principles, and above the law. They make the laws; they lay down the principles of their choice that suit their circumstances and their lives.The conferences of the people adopt the laws, and authority is the prerogative of the people’s conferences, which adopt the laws; the laws could be amended and rescinded. The People rescind and amend the law. Nothing that we say here is final because the People’s Conferences have the final word. However, as long as we have an opportunity to make our contributions to clarify these issues, we must do what we can.The world calls for an abolition of capital punishment, but practically goes in the opposite direction.The world, as you may be aware, declares that it will abolish capital punishment.This is only a lip service. In reality, the world takes the opposite direction.

It expands capital punishment but declares that it is moving in the direction of the abolition of capital punishment. We must prove this to the world. We must not let any governmental or non-governmental organization insult our intelligence. If they fooled other people, they cannot fool us. We know that the world declares that it will abolish capital punishment or wishes to abolish capital punishment, but in practice it is expanding capital punishment. What is more dangerous is that the death sentence is carried out extra-judicially and collectively. This is dangerous.

The death sentence is carried out collectively and extra-judicially!!

Therefore, the call to abolish capital punishment in courts is naïve, and has no moral force particularly when it is seen in the context of cases of capital punishment carried out collectively and extra-judicially.Furthermore, the countries that abolished capital punishment or that call for its abolition are the same countries that enforce the death sentence on a wide scale.The states that are calling for the abolition of a death sentence handed down by courts are the same states that resort to collective wide scale extra-judicial capital punishment.Therefore, arguments by international organizations or states against another state that did not abolish capital punishment in courts hold no ground. Those who declared that they abolished capital punishment and other major powers are still enforcing capital punishment collectively and extra-judicially. They call upon states that have not yet abolished capital punishment to do so; in return, those same states call upon them to stop imposing the death sentence extra-judicially. Under these circumstances, a death sentence handed down by courts is more legal, legitimate and humane than a summary execution that lacks due process and legal guarantees.The Israelis have abolished capital punishment. Who believes them? If they themselves say that capital punishment is abolished, how then do they commit mass killings? It is easier if the Palestinians were to be apprehended and tried in Israeli courts and if they had access to counsel.America sentenced me to death. It carried out the sentence, execution by bombs style, but my life was spared for reasons beyond America’s control.

America opposes the death sentence. It may have abolished capital punishment in some but not all states. Nevertheless, it still carries out a collective form of death sentencing. America handed down a death sentence against me; I was condemned to execution by bombs, but for reasons beyond its control, my life was spared. Which is better? Is it better to be tried, have access to council, and the right to appeal, or to face a death sentence without guarantees?

We need to make our position clear and reflect that position in our school curricula, and in the arguments we advance in international fora. Libya is in the lime light. There are those who fear Libya, who want to establish a relationship with Libya, who will invest in Libya, who come as tourists to Libya , who will work in the oil or gas field, or who will have something to do with Libya. There is Barcelona, the European Mediterranean [partnership]; Libya is in the spotlight, and Libya must therefore publicize its opinions, and chart the course it intends to follow in international fora. We do not want to become another Turkey, a county that has ambitions for admission to the European Union. The political, legislative and social particularities in Turkey would not qualify Turkey for membership in the European Union according to European standards. Therefore, Turkey’s behavior is random and is not compatible with its reality. The result is ludicrous, even humiliating. In the Turkish context, there are crimes that are serious, and unacceptable. Impunity is not an option.

They Europeans do not give weight to these considerations. They say, “The penalty for these acts must be abolished”. This approach however is untenable because if pursued, it will destroy the Turkish society. That society is organized around a given set of values. When those social, political and legislative values are eroded, the society will collapse. We must not be another Turkey. As we take center stage in this era, we cannot afford to be like Turkey. We must be backed by solid arguments to silence our detractors. For this reason, I requested to meet with law professors, students, and judges. It is important that we shed light on the issue.The world today is divided into two camps: formal and informal. We fear the aggression of the mighty.

The world today is divided into two camps: formal and informal. The formal camp is comprised of governments and major powers. International organizations are part of the formal camp. The formal stakeholders could manipulate these organizations, so could the major powers that have veto rights and permanent seats in the Security Council as well as military and economic prowess.The other camp is called the “informal” camp, which is made of non-governmental organizations established by groups and individuals. They are unrelated to states.

On the world map today, there are two camps: one formal the other informal. Both camps could call for an abolition of capital punishment. Nevertheless, their purposes are different. The formal camp has an agenda. The informal camp is the humanitarian establishment that may call for the abolition of this form of punishment for purely humanitarian reasons, unless they themselves fall victim to manipulation, or are controlled or exploited.

Major Powers like the United States, Britain or the Israelis may infiltrate one of the institutions of civil society and manipulate it. We correctly assume that these groups, the civil non-governmental organizations are informal organizations. When they appeal for the abolition of capital punishment in the world, we assume that their appeal is launched for purely humanitarian considerations. They do not have an agenda. They do not have political or economic interests that they want to advance; they are good Samaritans, decent and kind ordinary people who want to save themselves, their offspring, and humanity at large from capital punishment. For that reason, they established organizations that call for the abolition of this penalty and tried to pressure some states to abolish it too.World intelligence services are pushing for an end to capital punishment to protect their agents.

The formal camp is advocating the same. It calls for an abolition of capital punishment and exploits the non-governmental organizations to divert the attention that could otherwise be focused on them. Their objective is different. The formal world headed by Major Powers wants to abolish capital punishment, but it has an agenda. Unlike humanitarian organizations, it is not seeking the abolition of capital punishment because it is a good deed, and as such, is its own reward. They are serving their own interests. Some states have agents in Libya, Egypt, Iran or India, who could be Libyan, Egyptian, Iranian or Indian nationals or could be nationals of other countries. Those states want to protect their agents from execution. They want to station their agents in countries where the death penalty has been abolished. This may encourage agents to work for intelligence circles. All those intelligence services have a stake in abolishing the death penalty in countries in which their agents are stationed because they fear for their safety. The agents themselves will be afraid to work in a country that still enforces the death penalty. The situation of the agent in that country will be different from his situation in a country that does not enforce capital punishment. The spy and the traitor will know that they will face death if their cover is blown. Therefore, the countries that seek the abolition of capital punishment are not concerned about the welfare of the people of this state, or the nation. They are doing this for the sake of their agents.

The abolition of capital punishment may be pursued to protect foreign agents.This was the scenario at the security and intelligence level. Then we have smaller scale levels. Some states install puppets in other countries to govern on their behalf. Therefore, they want to abolish the death penalty that may be enforced against puppets and traitors. They want to keep them out of harm’s way, so that they continue working for them.How could the call for the abolition of the death penalty through legal avenues be deceptive?Governments, official circles, intelligence services, and foreign services are calling for the abolition of capital punishment that is still in force in Third World countries in defense of their agents. They want to guarantee that these agents would continue to work in these countries but not face the death sentence. The abolition of the death sentence encourages them. They will work knowing that beheading is not permissible; any other sentence, like a jail sentence, is fine. Therefore, the call for the abolition of capital punishment will not fool us. We are not naïve and we are not children. They cannot make a mockery of us.

What is the difference between handing down a death sentence through a legal system, or handing down a collective death sentence by firing rockets, bombing, starving or terrorizing people?We call for the abolition of the death sentence that is carried out extra-judicially.

We wish to abolish capital punishment, but want to define what capital punishment we are referring to. First, we want the indiscriminate death sentences handed down to people extra-judicially by bombs, rockets and starvation abolished. We have ten numbers, from one to ten, we cannot chose one only and say number seven or number eight or three for that matter. The ten counts are all death sentences, so why chose only number seven and abolish the rest. All the sentences are death sentences, and they must be all abolished. They are death sentences executed by bombing, firing rockets, by planes even by starvation, terror, or disease. In the final analysis, a sentence handed down by courts is better. It is not a surprise attack like an air raid carried out while we are fast asleep, or like an inter-continental missile. A death sentence handed down by courts is ultimately better. States, which indiscriminately carry out death-sentences extra-judicially, will be found guilty, while those, which enforce capital punishment in courts, will be acquitted. This is what we have to say at the United Nations and the United Nations system, at human rights organizations or at Amnesty International. We can advance this logic. We are against executions and against the death sentence. A death sentence is a death sentence whether carried out by a laser bomb, a cruise missile, a firing squad, a rope, an electric chair, poison gas, or by lethal injection. These are all executions. Is it not better to bring the accused to court, guarded from any possible harm, with a defense lawyer, an opportunity to hear charges against him, to defend himself, appeal the sentence or have the sentence commuted even after it is handed down? A governor, when this post exists, usually hands down the sentence or signs of the death sentence. This is the case in the Supreme Judicial Council in Libya. The Council can commute the death sentence into a jail sentence. It is possible to file new evidence and the convicted could be found innocent. Given these circumstances, which do you think is better: this scenario or that in which you could be suddenly executed by an air raid, by tank fire, a cross continental missile or by other means that deprive you from your right to a defense lawyer? Who could be your defense lawyer against a Cruise Missile? Against a Cruise Missile, you may have a Patriot. However, you may not have a Patriot. It is impossible for every state, household, street and family to have a Patriot or an anti-missile defense device. As long as you do not have that, you do not have the means to defend yourself.

As long as you do not have an anti missile defense device, you do not have a defense lawyer. You are in a big court that hands down indiscriminate death sentences. The victim does not have a lawyer and cannot defend himself against a nuclear bomb, an intercontinental missile, cluster bombs, or incendiary devices (Napalm). Neither does the victim have anti chemical and bacteriological devices, no masks or protective gear, no shelters. They went high-tech in executing the death sentence. They developed bombs and missiles that can penetrate protective barriers and hunt down the target. Therefore, someone can come to an ordinary court accompanied by a lawyer, a competent famous lawyer while another is unable to get this lawyer. You enter the shelter but they develop an anti-shelter bomb. They deprive you from the means for self-defense. These are the worst courts, courts where people get the death sentence but lack the means to defend themselves, protection, the opportunity to appeal the sentence, or the hope to be exonerated. They will be executed, extra-judicially.

The shrill voices of the mighty began to resonate around the world about the death penalty, which continues to be carried out by courts around the world. Half of the countries of the world enforce the death penalty; the other half or even less abolished it. The campaign against capital punishment suffered a setback after the attacks against New York. It suffered a major setback. Torture, violence and brutality are tolerated. America declared that it will hand down death sentences against its adversaries and will, for that purpose, use all available means, including covert ones. These means could remain secret until kingdom come. The American President himself said that. What is a death sentence? What is the purpose of the death sentence? Society hands down a death sentence against a criminal because it wants to get rid of this criminal. The criminal is the enemy of society. A criminal disrupts and threatens society. Therefore, society hands down a death sentence against this individual in a court. Let us take the example of Bin Laden. He is the enemy of America. The U.S. states that if it finds Bin Laden it will kill him. It will also kill Al-Zarqawi if it finds him. Is this not what they say? Why does America say that? It does because America considers him an enemy. You kill your enemy. Why do they say society should not kill its enemy if the enemy endangers the welfare of society? What shall we do? We should agree at the United Nations or at other international fora that killing a human being is inadmissible, that we cannot spill blood neither in courts nor by jets, ships, cruise missiles, starvation, covert assassination or any other means.

The Israelis abolished the death penalty in courts. They, however, continue to execute Palestinians extra-judicially, on a daily basis and on a massive scale. What then is the value of the abolition of the death penalty in Israeli courts? This is a charade, but no one seems to notice. Are the Palestinians not killed on a daily, deliberate and premeditated basis? They track a Palestinian, plant a homing device in his car or house that emits signals to the Apache helicopter which hunts him down. Is that not a deliberate death sentence by a firing squad executed extra-judicially outside the courts?

The world watches the execution of the Iraqi and Palestinian peoples carried out outside the courts and without due process.Human beings must be respected wherever they are.We will not give in to this travesty. Human beings must be respected wherever they are; human life is precious and must not be wasted. They must put an end to wars, invasions, and colonialism. We, on our part, must do likewise. This does not only apply to the abolition of the death penalty in courts but to executions in general, executing individuals and peoples. In a court of law one person in executed. Outside the courts, an entire people are executed. A death sentence has been issued against the Iraqi people and against the Palestinian people in an extra-judicial context, without trial or due process.

Being serious about abolishing the death penalty means putting an end to blood letting anywhere, by ending invasions, aggression and wars.I think that the abolition of the death penalty that is collectively enforced is more significant that the abolition of the death penalty handed down against individuals. The abolition of the death penalty outside the courts is more important than the abolition of the death penalty inside the courts. It does not mean that we support the death penalty. On the contrary, we insist on the abolition of the death penalty on a wide and not limited scale only. Opting for the latter will render the purpose meaningless. They abolished the death penalty in courts, but continued to strike at us outside the courts, killing us indiscriminately. You should stop executing us in public squares and streets. We are sincere in our desire to abolish the death penalty in the true sense of the word, in the judicial and extra-judicial contexts. Let us, however, begin with what is more significant. Let us put an end to executions outside the courts, indiscriminate massive scale executions, and death squads, otherwise called armies, which must stop executing people. Seriously, the abolition of the death penalty is civilized act. It should not be the result of pressure. Turkey is a case in point. Pressures are mounting on Turkey prior to its admission to the European Union; they can mount pressures against us in the process leading to the Mediterranean Partnership. The Third World could be pressured to enter into partnerships with Western societies.

The call to abolish the death penalty has become a bargaining chip in international relations.Being civilized and enlightened does not necessarily entail abolishing the death penalty.

A backward country decides to abolish the death penalty to satisfy some, or reap certain benefits. Shockingly though, it continues to exact this punishment and liquidate its opponents through unconventional means – outside the courts and without legal counsel. The result is worse. This country did not abolish the death penalty due to enlightenment, sophistication, or culture. It did not do it because its society is so civilized it cannot fathom killing human beings. Not at all. They did not get there yet. They are extremely backward. People kill each other, and that is quiet normal! To enter the European Common Market, the European Union, the Mediterranean Partnership, Barcelona, the United Nations, this or that organization, to get assistance, to prevent them from staging a coup against you, out of courtesy you for example say, “I abolished the death penalty”. This act is not a proof of sophistication. The country that abolishes the death penalty is a country where no man stabs or shoots another man to death. How do you abolish the death penalty in courts then allow people to shoot, stab or club each other to death or run each other over by cars? When you speed in a car, you may be about to kill some one. If you are civilized, you will not speed because speeding up may be a prelude to killing passengers in another vehicle or pedestrians strolling down the street. You could be one of them. If you die, you would have committed suicide.

How could you abolish execution in courts but allow it to remain in force outside the courts?When man is sophisticated and careful enough he controls the speed of his car because he knows the consequences of speeding. He knows better than to own a knife that he would use to kill a fellow man, or a shotgun that he may even use in self-defense. Why? Because the other party is sophisticated and civilized, and would not use a knife or a shotgun. Only then will the abolition of the death penalty be the result of a higher calling, a quid-pro-quo and not an act of intimidation, greed, fraud and hypocrisy.

I have always called for the abolition of the death penalty. Bahrain has abolished the death penalty. It was the only Arab country to abolish the death penalty. Are we to believe that Bahrain has already attained this high degree of sophistication and progress that it no longer needs the death penalty? This is not possible. Bahrain is like Libya and Morocco. We have the same mentality. When did they get there? Libya may be abolishing the death penalty tomorrow. More than once, I personally called on the People’s Conferences to abolish the death penalty. The Conferences did not endorse this proposal. The reason is that they are still not convinced. How could they be convinced if one may end up being stabbed on the street? If someone knows that stabbing me to death means the death penalty for him then he may not do it. This will deter others. In a way, my position and that of the People’s Conferences are the same. The Libyan people were prudent, and refused to abolish the death penalty. Moammar says the death penalty should be abolished. May be he wants to believe that we are a civilized nation. He wants to brag about us in Europe, the United States, the United Nations, Asia and Africa among others. Libya is a civilized nation. It abolished the death penalty.

Moammar thinks this way; we on the other hand think in a practical way, we will not abolish the death penalty. I heard them say that in the People’s Conferences. They debated the issue in seminars. I was satisfied that the people said no. They said, do you think the death penalty was easily instated? Our society did not yet reach the stage at which it can abolish the death penalty. Other parties should abolish the death penalty that they enforce extra-judicially and indiscriminately. The call to abolish the death sentence means ceasing manufacturing and exporting weapons. This is what the Libyan people said. We frequently called for the abolition of the death penalty but the Libyan people refused. They believed that we did not reach the stage that would justify this step. The world is largely barbaric; it continues to manufacture atomic bombs, aircraft carriers, chemical agents, artillery, tanks, anthrax and other germs in addition to other instruments of death. It manufactures all of the above then calls on you to abolish the death penalty. Everyday you sharpen a knife and everyday you manufacture a knife you do so to slaughter people. How could you ask them to abolish the death penalty? You must abolish knives, stop manufacturing knives, and destroy all weapon stocks. We will have a measure of confidence that Libya would not attack America, and America would not attack Libya. Iraq would not attack Kuwait and Kuwait would not attack Iraq. Pakistan would not attack India and India would not attack Pakistan, India would not attack China and so on and so forth. When we get to this stage, and when there is confidence, the world and we would have reached an advanced level of progress then we will be fully convinced.

Human life must be spared, and must be equally precious.

When we say we should have one African army in Africa, which is a proposal we submitted to the African Union, and we should disband individual African armies some may come and say, “how could you disband my army? Is it not possible that my African neighbor will mount an attack against me?” In response we say, “Your neighbor does not have an army. We simultaneously requested that it too disband its army. Be assured, so long as your neighbors do not have armies to commit an act of aggression against you there is no army that could attack you. Your situations are identical. Moreover, should you be victim of an external attack, an African army will defend you.” The day you decide not to execute me, to abolish the death penalty that could be imposed on me and I do likewise, when we have faith in each other, things will fall into place. This will be the end, and capital punishment could then be abolished. In other words, we should include in the curricula of the schools of law in the Jamahiriya, and we must say in our statements that we cannot be selective in exacting the death penalty. Wasting human life and bloodshed is the same everywhere. Life is equally precious, and must therefore be equally spared. A Libyan is not different from an American or an Iranian, Indian, Pakistani, Chinese, British or German. A human being is to be respected, and his life must be spared. He must not be executed by bombs or missiles, by hanging or bullets, by electric shock or poison gas. These are different methods of execution. We must agree on abolishing the death penalty and the means of carrying it out. This approach pursues a secular, civic and social approach that has no theological or religious dimension. If we were to introduce theology into this equation, we will end up in another controversy.

How was the issue of capital punishment, or the law of retaliation in killing addressed in religion, jurisprudence, and philosophy?A Muslim would respond, religion ordered me to kill the killer. God mandated retaliation, ordered me to cut off the hand of the thief, and ordered me to flog. How can I disobey? Who is going to defend me to god on the Day of Judgment? Who would say, “God do not judge him for failing to apply your law [Sharia], it was me who ordered him to do so”. If they guarantee us that God will not find us at fault on the Day of Judgment because they were the ones who told to follow this or that path, and we carried out the orders and obstructed God’s laws, that is another thing. However, it is impossible. They cannot do that, nor are they sure it can happen this way. What would you say when you see manifest signs as God addresses you as “O ye who believe?” We should be attentive. It means that God addresses us, saying, “You, people” or “You, Citizens”, then we are the addressees “O you who have attained to faith, Just retribution is ordained from you in cases of killing” we listen to God. What do you want from us? “O you who have attained to faith”, he said. We are listening, Lord. We shall obey. He says, “Just retribution is ordained from you”, “the free for the free, and the slave for the slave and the woman for the woman”. What do we say then? This is ordained. There is nothing more to say. This is our fate. It is sealed. “Fasting is prescribed to you”. That is it. We therefore fast “as it was prescribed to those before you”. So we still fast, fasting is prescribed to us. Do we interpret that? Do we say, “No, we will not fast”? “Prayers are enjoined on believers at stated times”. This is it. Prayers have to be performed at stated times. So we turned our backs to the United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Organizations, the thoughts of philosophers and intellectuals, then we came to turn a new page.

Why did we turn to religion? We sought God’s advice and found that God expects us to submit to other demands. In retribution, it is “the free for the free”, for, “in [the law of] just retribution, O you who are endowed with insight, there is life for you”. “And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have empowered his heir with authority (to demand retribution or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law). Therefore, man may demand retribution in killing, but must not exceed bounds in taking life. Therefore, if someone is wrongfully slain, those who are authorized to defend him can demand death for his slayer. His counsel cannot exceed bounds, so his maternal and paternal cousins may not be killed in retribution. “Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause.” This means that god proscribed taking life, which He has made sacred. We then go back to our earlier proposal. We said life is precious and sacred. God made it sacred, and it must not be wasted. No one says the God you worship sanctions killing. We are involved in bloodshed. "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood? The angels said, Lord, you create Adam, a human being to make mischief.

“[God] answered: "Verily, I know that which you do not know."” God knows better. He had a reason for creating us although we are involved in bloodshed. God proscribed taking life. They may answer, “The God you worship likes bloodshed in addition to the death penalty.” Absolutely not. Do not “take life - which Allah has made sacred, except for a just cause”. Therefore, the only exception to the prohibition of taking life is when life is taken for a just cause. When there is a just cause, one can take life. There are other verses in the Quran, stressing the sanctity of human life, followed by the word “except”. He sets the conditions for taking life, not through injustice, aggression, colonization, dictatorships, oppression and mutilation. This is dictatorship.

You are about to present a draft penal code to the People’s Conferences. In my opinion, you must take your time to study it carefully. Then you can submit it to the People’s Conferences. You should not hasten to adopt it; it must be thoroughly and extensively debated.

In this law, there is the crime against society, otherwise called haraba. Under this crime, the death penalty is permitted. Haraba is identical to terrorism. It applies to terrorism. The word Haraba is not God’s word. Jurists coined this word. They may have coined it from the verse: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land”. This is what you can use as a basis for the Terrorism Act. The counter-terrorism act is what you call haraba. It should not be called Haraba, because haraba is not a word used by God. God said, “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah”. They coined the word from the Arabic “yuhariboun”, i.e., wage war, against god and his prophet. What are the acts punishable under this concept? The include banditry, terrorizing people by threatening their security on the roads, at home, or just anywhere among other things. This is terrorism. They annihilate people under the pretext of combating terrorism. The result is that when we counter terrorism inside the courts and hand down death sentences some say, “Do not sentence a terrorist to death”.

The moment we discuss things from a theological point of view of, someone like Dr. Rajab Aboudabous may present a very different perspective. We do not know where it could take us, it may be right, and it could be wrong. I am confident that like Dr. Aboudabous, you may respond that the verse “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land” was revealed on a specific occasion. Therefore, he will refer us to the historical context of revelation of the surahs. “DOOMED are the hands of the Father of Flame! And doomed is he. What will his wealth avail him, and all that he has gained?” They are verses we recite with owe and respect. They however concern Abou Lahab, the father of the flame and his spouse. They burnt firewood on a road that Mohammad used to travel. God told them that they would both be burnt in a fire of blazing flame on the Day of Judgment. The story ends there with Abou Lahab and his spouse. God responded to an incident. “Allah has indeed heard the story of the woman who pleads with thee concerning her husband and carries her complaint to Allah”. This is the story of a woman who had a problem with her husband, and God revealed the solution in this Quranic verse. Aisha was accused. God exonerated her. God revealed this verse, said that she is innocent, and her accusers in Medina were liars. So one person was wrongfully charged, and god exonerated her. This applies to the spouse of the Prophet. Some went to the prophet and complained because they were poor.

The Prophet gave them some camels and a shepherd and directed them to where they should go. This is one version of the story. The other version is that they went to the prophet, converted to Islam and fell sick in Medina, because there were many swamps in Medina. They complained to the prophet .The prophet told them “we have camels in the desert, stay in the desert, use the urine and milk of camels as treatment and you will get better.” Apparently, they did, but ended up killing the shepherd, stealing the camels and turning back from Islam. According to the narrative, the prophet asked that they be apprehended and brought back, which they were. Their hands and feet were cut off from opposite sides, they were crucified, and their bodies were mutilated. There were other stories. Some said their eyes were gorged out and were never given a second chance, God forgive us. The punishment was exacted. The question is did the prophet issue his orders after the revelation? Did he wonder what punishment he could inflict on people he treated well but who betrayed him in return? They were sick. They converted to Islam. He sent them to the camel shepherd. They slaughtered the shepherd and took the camels. Either God instructed the prophet to exact this punishment, or the prophet improvised and God seconded.

When Dr. Abou Dabbous argues the case, he will tell you this is an incident that happened to a group of people in the past, and it has no relevance today. Dr. Abou Dabbous will refer you to the context of its revelation. Dr. Abou Dabbous who teaches philosophy will look at this story from that perspective. He will say, this verse was revealed because of a group of people who committed a heinous act, and were punished. This does not mean that every time a heinous act is committed peoples’ hands and feet should be chopped of. This argument applies across the board. A thief stole something. At that time, the punishment was that the thief, Male or female, should have their hands cut off. The question is shall we continue to cut off the hands of thieves? Should this punishment rather apply only to those people, at the time the crime was committed, and under the specific circumstances that prevailed? People steal all the time. Shall they remain without arms? Jesus said he who has not sinned should cast the stone. Is it possible that no one stole anything ever in his life? It is possible that everybody stole something one way or another. Does this mean we cut off the hands of everybody? God says we cut off the hands of thieves, males or females. If we start arguing about this, and we arrive at solutions, it will no longer be a religion but will become positive law.

This is the case with Islamic Sharia (jurisprudence). Islamic jurisprudence is a positive set of laws with the seal of Islam. Islamic Sharia is a positive law, not different from Roman law, Napoleon’s Law and all other laws. They call these laws “Islamic Sharia” to give force to these laws so that the Caliphs and leaders would secure obedience from their people. Caliphs, governors and sultans are consistent; they want to control. How can they control the world and its people without holiness? Their laws are God’s laws. Therefore, they call the set of laws “Islamic Sharia”. Any breach of the laws would be a breach of Islamic Sharia. You will be running up against Islamic Sharia. This is a serious crime. What is Sharia law? It is interpretations. Malek said, Abu Hanifa said, they interpreted the law. Even Abou Dabbous said, and all what they said became Islamic Sharia. A Muslim interpreted the law and said something today. What he said is not different from what was said before. The only difference is the temporal dimension.

What crimes deserve to be punishable by the death penalty?We come to the last or penultimate page. I asked for the record of crimes perpetrated in Libya, whose perpetrators deserved the death penalty. I found death penalty cases endorsed by the Supreme Council for Judicial Bodies. I found some of these cases to be questionable. I found it difficult to understand how they were endorsed. We shall refrain from naming the defendants, but will only cite the judgment. The defendant (sentenced to death) and the victim drank wine, may God preserve us, with others. God says “Satan seeketh only to cast among you enmity and hatred by drinking wine and gambling”. Sure, it is the drinking and the gambling that led to the crime. That is what happened. Animosity ensued when they were intoxicated, and a misunderstanding between the victim and the perpetrator led to the latter stabbing the former to death.

The motive for the crime was simply a misunderstanding between two intoxicated individuals. The judgment handed down was the death sentence. How could you pass down a death sentence in this case? Who among you could explain the sentence? The crime was not of the first degree. It was not premeditated. They were all intoxicated. Criminal intent is absent in this case. They could be friends. Is there a judge who can explain this to us?

Interventions and Exchanges of views:

[Intervention] in this instance, the victim was harassed.

[Leader] I have one comment to make. Distinguished Judges, should any one of you decide to take the floor, please do not disclose whether you were sitting on the Bench in this case. You may comment on the judgment, even if you were the sitting judge or the Chief Judge, please indicate your opinion only without further explanations.

[Intervention] I was not one of the judges sitting on the Bench in this case, but I read the case as a member of the Judicial Council that endorsed the sentence. The defendant and the victim were not Libyan nationals. They were partying. The victim sexually harassed the defendant. He persisted. The victim sexually abused the defendant. When he did not relent, the defendant stabbed the victim to death. The court found him guilty of murder of the first degree.

[Leader] The person was harassed. He acted in self-defense. How could he be sentenced to death?

[Intervention] He could have defended himself differently, even through passive resistance.

[Leader] What else could he have done?[Intervention] I do not believe he was in a state of self-defense because the other person did not hate him.

[Leader] This is exactly why I had a question mark in the first place. How could a person like him be sentenced to death? They could have handed down a different sentence. He came with his friend and they were drinking together. They were friends and he did not intend to kill him. The other person sexually attacked him, and he defended his honor with the tool available to him. This act of self-defense led to the death of the victim. How could some one act in self-defense and end up facing a death sentence? Does that mean you must not defend yourself if you want to avoid the death sentence?[Intervention] The perpetrator intended to kill.

[Leader] Yes, he did. He intended to escape harm, he deliberately sought defense.

[Intervention] He expressed a desire, and deliberately pursued fulfillment. In the documents that were available to the Court, he did not hold or coerce him. The comment that I wanted to make is that when the Judiciary Council is seized with these sentences, it does not debate the substance. It only considers the admissibility or inadmissibility of amnesty. The Council does not assess the crime or the evidence.

[Leader] What are the Council’s terms of reference?

[Intervention] From the Legislative point of view, the Judiciary Council must not have this authority. Pardoning a crime is a discretionary authority usually vested in society and its guardians. The mandate of the Judiciary Council is confined to supervising the judiciary in all matters that are of concern. These are discretionary matters intended to assess whether society is right in granting or withholding amnesty. The Judiciary Council must not decide on these matters.

[Leader] Who should decide then?

[Intervention] Any other authority must do that. The functions of the Judiciary Council are supervisory in nature.

[Leader] We do not have a president, a governor or guardian. We are a self-governing people. We chose the Supreme Judiciary Council because it is in charge of endorsing sentences.

[Intervention] The General Conference of the People must be able to do that. Any organ that can assess the social and political ramifications is in a position to do that.

[Leader] It is difficult for the General Conference of the People to do this. It is difficult for one thousand people to discuss this issue. They meet annually. Fine. On what basis does the Supreme Judiciary Council discharge its functions?

[Intervention] The Council’s mandate is legislative. This function was not in force. It was delegated to the Revolution Command Council. Later on, that function was assigned to the General People’s Committee. No one exercised this function, until it was later on transferred to the Supreme Judiciary Council. I personally believe that the Supreme Council does not think that this is one of its functions. The Council cannot decide whether clemency is or is not due. It administratively supervises the judiciary bodies, and has oversight functions with regard to promotions, mobility, and appointments. Is it better for society if the Council withholds or endorses the penalty? This is the question that needs to be addressed.

[Leader] Excuse me for asking, but let us take as an example a country that is traditionally governed by a president or a king, a person who is the Supreme Guardian of the people. This Guardian endorses decisions and signs off on death sentences. On what basis does he do that? Does he review the decision according to his whims? Someone on death row today may be pardoned today, but if I was in a bad mood tomorrow so be it, the other death row prisoner may die.[Intervention] In fulfilling this function, we usually seek the assistance of local authorities.[Leader] You strayed away from the answer. Fine, it does not matter. You did not answer me. Please continue.

[Intervention] I specifically stated that the Judiciary Council must not have this authority because it is in fact exercising it. Others must be brought in to assist.

[Leader] Excuse me, in any event, what is the Judiciary Council to do when death sentences are brought before it?

[Intervention] If the killing was retribution, the Judiciary Council would not accept the petition in the first place because the party that is eligible to grant amnesty is the family of the victim. If the killing was criminal, the Judiciary Council has the authority to grant amnesty if this amnesty would better serve society.

[Leader] This means that the council reviews the case.[Intervention] No, it does not review the case. The case is only presented to the Council after the Supreme Court issues a ruling on it. The council can only issue an order of amnesty or execution.[Intervention] It is the higher judicial level that reviews the case from a technical legal perspective. The sentence becomes final when the Supreme Court endorses it. The Higher Judiciary Council is concerned with verifying it according to observed laws and its jurisdiction. As the speaker before me said, there are issues of punishment decreed by religious law. The Council's endorsement is no more than a formality because sentences issued in cases of religious penalty cases cannot be ruled on by law. The Council has the authority to lighten the sentence from a death sentence to imprisonment in the cases of other penal sentences if the death sentence was handed down in a case other than one of religious punishment. This practice is currently observed.

[Leader] How? Does it review the case?

[Intervention] The Council does not review the case from a judicial perspective. It is not a court of law.[Intervention] It means that the Judiciary Council has no role to play in reviewing the factual aspects of the case. The Council's role is a strictly technical one. It just makes sure that due process was observed in the preliminary stage and before the Supreme Court. This is the role it was accorded by law; namely, to consider the technical aspects of a case and make sure that due process was observed, including appeals. It is only concerned with these issues and its role is very simple and limited.

[Leader] I understand.

[Intervention] Authority over these issues was given to the Council by virtue of a special order as Professor Husayn said. The preliminary or secondary stages were ultimately placed in the Council's scope because it is the closest thing to knowing the sentences and estimating them. This is why the privileges were taken from the People's Assembly and General Popular Committee and given to this esteemed council.

[Leader] It is a better guarantee than a governor who may or not believe the argument, because this governor that you speak of -- who might be a head of any state in the world or anyone tasked with reviewing death sentences -- may or may not endorse these sentences. He does not review the court proceedings to verify that due process was observed as the Judiciary Council does. This person ultimately does not know all the details and endorses these sentences according to his mood. For example, if it is the birthday of the king's wife today, he would issue an amnesty, and if he is having a bad day tomorrow, he will endorse the death sentence. The Higher Judiciary Council, however, is a guarantee as the professor explained. It guarantees that due process was observed. As long as procedures were followed soundly, the Council has nothing to do with the sentence. This sentence was issued by a court and it is the business of the appeals process and Supreme Court.

[Intervention] This is not an amnesty.

[Intervention] An amnesty is a discretionary authority left to the discretion of the highest ruler in the country, who may issue amnesties as he pleases. That is an amnesty. But this is about a review of the case when the need arises.

[Leader] We are on the right path. I guarantee it. There is a Higher Judiciary Council that reviews all the stages of the trial process, starting with the criminal court and including the court of appeals and the Supreme Court in order to verify that the process was sound. The council has nothing to do with the case or whether the suspect receives an amnesty or not, because that is up to the courts. This is very reasonable.

[Intervention] It reviews the cases when necessary.[Leader] In any event, I was upset by the death sentence handed down in this case. Ever since I saw that sentence, I no longer feel confident about death sentences. You saw, from what the professor explained, that there could be two persons who are drunk, and who may be friends, and one person assaults the other, who defends himself and kills his aggressor. For the man who defended himself to be sentenced to death is disconcerting.

[Intervention] I have not viewed this particular case, but I have experience with similar cases, there was no attempted assault and despite that the person was sentenced to death. My colleagues the counselors and I see that entering a state of alcoholic intoxication is voluntary. With regard to the perpetrators, no one forced them to drink alcohol but they did and are responsible for their actions regardless of their claims that they were drunk and committed the crime unintentionally. This means that people will go unpunished. That person intentionally drank alcohol and intentionally committed a crime. A second point is the motive for the crime, which has no legal considerations. Let us take stealing for example. If someone says: "I am going to steal regardless of the consequences because I am in need," then he might think he is justified. He will be treated the same way a person who steals to get rich or buy something will be treated because the motive does not have any considerations on the crime. When an intoxicated person kills, he is handed the death sentence because he drank alcohol of his own free will and was not forced.

[Leader] It is as if by drinking, he already took the first step toward the murder.There is another case that is worthy of mention. The victim let his sheep graze in the farm of the perpetrator (who was sentenced to death). The perpetrator struck the victim on the head with a club. The victim later died of his injuries. The motive behind this crime is a misunderstanding that broke out because the victim let his sheep graze in the perpetrators' farm. Now, who is the wrongdoer? Is it the man who grazed his livestock in the perpetrator's farm? I wanted a judge to explain it to us. It might be the same judge that presided over the trial, but it is not necessary for him to say that he is the one who issued the sentence; we just want his opinion. I said from the start that it is not important for him to say that he is the one who issued the sentence and simply give us his opinion.[Intervention] If the court found that the killing was intentional even if he only intended to beat him with the club and that led to his death, then the crime would be viewed as premeditated murder. The matter is up to the court to decide.[Leader] This person has been the victim of injustice and had no intention to kill the other person, who came and grazed his sheep in the accused person's farm. The latter wanted to defend himself or his property or wanted to take revenge on the person who trespassed into his farm and thus hit him with a club. The beating led to death but it was not intended to kill. Are you -- the speakers -- judges?[Intervention] We beg your pardon, brother leader; this is a legal issue or one of strict jurisprudence called "criminal intent". Criminal intent, under the law can be present even for a moment, so that the assault resulting from this intent is an intentional desire to kill, making it a premeditated murder. This is confirmed by the investigations conducted by the prosecutor's office and the court and by the evidence and witness testimony. The matter is one of facts, documents, and investigations. Therefore, it would be difficult to answer your question. We must first return to the documents and facts in order to verify whether or not there was criminal intent that led to the assault. The evidence can be indicative. The murder weapon and location could have a role in formulating criminal intent and deciding that the incident was one of intentional murder and not one of manslaughter. It is a complex and sensitive case that are difficult to prove except by the prosecutor general, the defense, or another such body.

[Leader] But if the case is the subject of doubt and involves this much complexity, then the sentence must always be in favor of the suspect.

[Intervention] If investigations prove that the perpetrator's intent was criminal and resulted in the assault that led to death, then we have before us is a case of premeditated murder.

[Leader] What drew my attention in this case is that I saw someone letting his sheep graze in someone else's farm. The owner of the farm grabbed a stick and beat the shepherd with it. The victim died at a later time and not at the time of the assault. It is very clear that the assailant had no ulterior motives to kill the victim and that the events were dictated by unexpected developments. This man brought his sheep into another man's land without his knowledge. In addition, he did not use a pistol or rifle, which can be viewed as a clear intention to kill; rather, a stick is an available tool with very simple uses, and is not meant for murder.

[Intervention] It is a series of events that lead us to conclude that the suspect intended to kill the victim, which entails criminal intent. The judge will consider the crime from every aspect and the surrounding conditions that led to the death.

[Leader] His intention was not to kill. His intention was revenge or to punish this trespasser who was grazing his sheep in his farm. It is clear that he is an ordinary person and that the assault led to death but that the intention was not primarily to kill.

[Intervention] Death is not the same as intentional murder or the intention to kill. We might have a fight with someone but not intend to kill him, but might throw a punch that could be said to have killed him.

[Leader] The first and second cases that we have viewed would cause people not to defend themselves anymore. The first one was defending a transgression against his honor and you sentenced him to death, which means that no one can defend his honor. The second man was defending his property and you sentenced him to death, which means that no one can defend his property…etc. We would arrive at a situation where no one can defend themselves.

[Intervention] A premeditated intent must exist. Issues deserving religious punishment in particular -- be they thefts or feuds -- are referred to the Supreme Court even without an appeal. The Supreme Court must review all aspects of the case. Procedures must be followed to prove the existence of intent, and the argument must hold. The court's formation must also be sound and the process followed flawless. We have statistics that the Supreme Court has viewed half the appeal cases and overturned them for reasons. Out of 413 cases of theft, 300 were overturned and returned to the court in question. Approximately half the capital punishment cases were returned to the court in question. Arriving at a sentence in accordance with the law, the details of the case you mentioned must be examined. The court trying the case must prove that the suspect intended to kill the victim before actually killing him.

[Leader] You are the president of the Supreme Court, what do you say?

[Intervention] It is a matter of legitimate defense, which has its conditions, the most important of which is that something must be wrong. This wrongful situation must be immediate. In order for the person not to be sentenced to death, there must be wrongdoing and it must be immediate. In this case, if the person had directly assaulted the animal, then it would have been a case of self defense, but when he assaulted the owner of the sheep, the self-defense claim does not apply because the immediate threat no longer existed. It is necessary for there to be a continued and immediate threat, or else he would not be acting in self defense but as an attacker. In my opinion, the sentence is sound because if he was in a position of legitimate self defense, then he should have attacked the source of the threat; namely, the sheep. Had he done that, he would not have been prosecuted, but once he attacked the shepherd, the conditions needed for self defense were removed. The most important condition is for the threat to be present.

[Leader] Are you, the speaker, and a student?

[Intervention] I am a third-year student at the school of law at Al-Fatih University.

[Leader] You are very interested in and serious about your studies. Here is another case that caught my attention. Here are the facts: The suspect smuggled some drugs by hiding them in small spaces in the vehicles they were riding in with the purpose of selling them. The drugs were caught in their possession, examined by a court body and found to be hashish weighing thousands of grams. Investigations found that the suspects had smuggled other shipments of drugs and managed to traffic them throughout the Jamahiriya. The criminal court sentenced the suspects to death after finding them guilty of the charges rendered against them. What do we gain from executing these people? Their crime had no motives; they were simply people selling hashish.

[Intervention] We have a narcotics law and in reaffirmation of the efforts exerted to combat the growing phenomenon of drugs, it was amended to endorse the death sentence in narcotics cases. This, of course, is a punitive measure and in this case, the Higher Judiciary Council can lessen the sentence. It has the authority to do so because the sentence is not a religious ruling and does not have the circumstances of such a ruling.

[Leader] Why do you say it is punitive?

[Intervention] Because it did not break any religious laws.

[Leader] You put narcotics in the realm of religious cases.

[Intervention] No. The narcotics law is an individual law and the death sentence was added to apply to a special circumstance; namely, trafficking.

[Leader] Religious punishment and punitive measures are in Islamic Law.

[Intervention] No, we call it a punitive measure because it is outside the realm of religious punishment and it is not a form of retribution, which means that the laws of retribution and blood money do not apply. The Higher Judiciary Council has authority in these cases.

[Leader] Focusing on the case before it reaches the Higher Council, why did the court issue a death sentence?

[Intervention] In terms of the narcotics law, law number 7 of 1990 set punitive measures of imprisonment and life imprisonment. It was later amended after narcotics became viewed as a weapon of mass destruction. Article 169 of the penal code considered narcotics crimes as crimes against the state. The punitive measures were set out in three paragraphs:The first paragraph stipulates imprisonment for using narcotics. The second paragraph stipulates life imprisonment and the third stipulates capital punishment for drug trafficking. The suspects brought large quantities of drugs into the country. It is illogical that they were intending to use them all, so the court concluded that they had the intent to traffic drugs and applied paragraph 3 of article 169 in its sentence, which applies to foreigners who take bribes against the interests of the state and political crimes against the state, all of which have high sentences according to severity. Paragraph three stipulated that the sentence must be the death sentence.If you allow me, I want to return to the first issue; namely, accidental manslaughter, ....

If you would like to support the AlGaddafi.org project - There are 2 options: A PayPal Donation or buying your Web-Hosting (WordPress, Weebly, E-Shop...and much more, via the right Hostgator button! Thank You!

Donate via PayPal! It`s 100% Secure!

There are always to Learn More...

Enter your search terms

algaddafi.org

Submit search form

The mirror site of AlGaddafi.org (AlGathafi.org) was taken down mid 2011 by the hosting company "BlueHost", due attack warnings by "Anonymous"...But, Muammar Al Gaddafi had always back-up plans. This domain is just one of 4 other domains, used by and for Al Gaddafi, to publish the Libyan leaders ideas. Therefore, we also don`t really believe in his murder, but of an set-up video evidence of his capture, by....[...]. As it went round worldwide, in low mobile phone quality... The question is therefore; where is Muammar Al Gaddafi. For sure; If he would go public, or just located anywhere, [they] would kill him immediately. This is out of question. As you know, all his family is quiet, due high risk of being murdered. Enough of Evidence..? Latest evidence of Muammar Al Gaddafi`s family being tortured: Sadi Al-Gaddafi. Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi sentenced to death by the mainly Misurata controlled "government" No 2, in Tripoly.Also the officials of the Jamahiriya, who are on "trial".Think about, what they would do with Muammar Al Gaddafi, and the rest of his family, if they could get hold of them, included Aisha Al-Gaddafi..?See also the recent request by "ICC", regarding the, international recognised, Sudanese president (South Africa, AU summit), which was at least turned down by South Africa and the African Union.. Not that we particular like this man, as he involved himself and Sudan, against the Libyan people and Muammar al Gaddafi, to buy himself time. But, it is a good step forward, to a more independent Africa. Something Dr. Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana) and Al Gaddafi fought for, all of their life, as leaders of their countries!

Prof. Francis Dessart""Man of faith and tradition, Muammar Al Qadhafi cannot be classified according to the criteria commonly admitted. If you search for him on the right you will find him on the left, since he preaches in many ways a renovation with the air of revolution. But if you look for him on the left you risk finding him on the right, because this sincere mystic is tied to more than one traditional value. It is not Qadhafi who is senseless; it is the terms, obsolete, and upon which are based the subjective judgements of foreign observers who are more interested in polemic than in the truth." > Read MORE (New Window)

Copyright | AlGathafi.org / AlGaddafi.org2007 (old web address: AlGathafi.org) 2007 - 2015 - AlGaddafi.org - The official Mirror Site, since 2007! For Terms & Conditions, please see the info at AlGaddafi.orgYou are free to download any audio, text or video. By re-use on other websites, please, be so kind and include a link to; www.AlGaddafi.org

B. Obama - The best TROJAN HORSE, ever - used by USA!

Muammar Al Gaddafi about B. Obama (2009); "We Africans are happy and proud indeed that a son of Africa is now President of the United States of America. That is a historic event. Now, in a country where blacks once could not mingle with whites, in cafés or restaurants, or sit next to them on a bus, the American people have elected as their President a young black man, Mr. Obama, of Kenyan heritage. That is a wonderful thing, and we are proud. It marks the beginning of a change. However, as far as I am concerned, Obama is a temporary relief for the next four or eight years. I am afraid that we may then go back to square one. No one can guarantee how America will be governed after Obama..."

A personal website that contains the thougths, ideas and vision of Brother Leader Muammar Algathafi /مُعَمَّرالقَذَّاف‎

/ カダフィ閣下が語るOn the solutions to the issues of today`s world КаддафиГоворит - Персональный сайт -年

On the solutions to the issues of today`s world КаддафиГоворит - Персональный сайт - 年卡扎菲谈话 -主页 - 官方网站